A Sample of my Open University degree module homework:
"Social science in action audio 9, ‘The uses of psephology’
Richard Heffernan
Hello. I’m Richard Heffernan, Reader in government at the Open University.
[Background discussion]
Speaker 1
…When all the votes have been cast, attention will turn to the race for the results and…
Richard Heffernan
Today I’ll be discussing psephology, the study of voting, and psephologists, those social scientists who study voting.
[Background discussion]
Speaker 2
…Only half a per cent swing to Keir Hardie’s son-in-law in South Ayrshire…
Speaker 3
…we hadn’t allowed for a 9.1 per cent swing to the Conservatives which is just the result we’ve got…
Speaker 4
…look at Labour bouncing on there in all those seats around London, the home counties, in the Midlands, a great wodge of (...)…
Richard Heffernan
Joining me to discuss this is Professor John Curtice of the University of Strathclyde. John is a leading psephologist and an expert in electoral behaviour.
[Background discussion]
Speaker 5
…We get these results declared one after another at one o'clock, two o'clock, three o'clock in the morning, when most people are not awake, we simply want to know who’s winning and who’s losing…
Speaker 6
…and it’s going to be a very, very close run thing…
Richard Heffernan
I first asked John to explain to me what psephology is and what psephologists do.
Professor John Curtice
Psephology is simply the study of voting behaviour, how people vote and how those votes get turned into collective decisions such as who gets elected into a parliament. It’s called psephology simply because when the Athenians were voting in classical Greek times, they voted using pebbles, by casting a pebble into the centre. Psephos is the Greek for pebble, ology is to do with study, so that’s where the wording comes from. It’s simply people who study voting behaviour. How do they do this? Well, they do it, I guess, primarily these days, by two principal methods. The first is by simply looking at election results themselves, so in the United Kingdom, for example, looking at how votes are cast in individual constituencies and how these vary or differ from previous elections. There are essentially two things that one can do through that. The first is that, there are certain things like, such as, for example, whether or not if somebody is an existing MP and they’re standing again, are they likely to do better than a fresh candidate? And the second and most crucial thing of reason for looking at election results, if you want to understand how electoral system is operating, in other words, how the votes that are being cast within constituencies or whatever get translated into a parliamentary outcome, then you undoubtedly have to look at the election results and how the electoral system operates. The second principal method that psephologists use these days is essentially the social survey, that is by interviewing, hopefully, a representative sample of people about who they voted for, perhaps asking them why, though not necessarily, asking certainly a lot of information both about themselves, about their occupation, their religion, their gender, things that might be thought to have influenced their voting behaviour, certainly also ask them a lot about their attitudes, for example, questions designed to tap whether they want a more or less equal society, asking what they think about the political parties, about the leaders of those political parties, and how they think they have performed and whether or not the opposition would perform any better. And they would put this information through statistical modelling procedures in order to try to identify who indeed, is most likely to vote Conservative, who is most likely to vote Labour, who is most likely to switch between the parties in a particular way, by relating this behaviour to the myriad of other information collected in the survey.
Richard Heffernan
So it would be safe to say then that psephology is involved studying elections after they take place to explain what happened rather than to anticipate what is likely to happen?
Professor John Curtice
Well, I mean, there is no doubt that certainly the academic trade of psephology is indeed to try primarily to enable us to understand the past, both the immediate past and also how trends have developed over the longer term, and academically, at least, that certainly is its core purpose. That said, of course, what has been said and analysed and discussed with respect to the last election is often regarded as a guide as to what we might anticipate at a forthcoming election, and to that extent at least, certainly, psephology gets used by the media, by politicians, by commentators and certainly by journalists and commentators to try and work out what might be the implications of more recent developments, and what the prospects of the parties might be at the next election. So to that extent at least, like many other areas of, of academic knowledge, it also gets applied for purposes that are not purely academic but arguably help us to understand what we are as a society and certainly to help us to understand what is going on in contemporary politics.
Richard Heffernan
I wonder if I could ask you, as a leading psephologist, how you interact with pollsters, pundits, politicians and the public?
Professor John Curtice
So far as pollsters are concerned, it’s true that the academics don’t go out and interview respondents themselves. They rely on survey organisations to undertake the survey work that they require to have done in order to be able to study voting from their particular perspective. They therefore inevitably have to have a degree of expertise about how opinion polls are conducted, about how surveys are conducted, and therefore certainly, undoubtedly, there is an interaction, certainly in my case, with what the more commercial pollsters, discussions about methodology, discussions about, for example, the relative merits of internet polling versus telephone polling, how do we overcome perhaps some of the limitations of commercial opinion polling and some of the limitations of their methodology and are there ways of weighting their opinion polls to overcome those. And also, to some degree also, pollsters will be doing work for newspapers, they then may need that work interpreted for the newspaper, academic psephologists will get involved in that.
Richard Heffernan
So it seems that there are a variety of ways in which psephologists can get involved in the more commercial world of opinion polls. They can often suggest interesting questions that are worth asking that maybe the professional pollster might not necessarily be aware of. But how do psephologists engage with pundits, with journalists and commentators?
Professor John Curtice
Well, that varies to some degree. I mean, certainly, in my own case, I’m probably rather more at the involved end in this. I actually do some of the journalism myself. I get asked by newspapers to say, Look, we’ve got an opinion poll coming, would you be willing to write six hundred or a thousand words or whatever it is they want, on this particular opinion poll? So in a sense, I apply within the particular world of journalism, the more general skill that one develops as a psephologist which is to take what for many people may look like an utterly incomprehensible set of numbers and turn it into a story about what is going on in politics, how the public thinks, et cetera. So that’s certainly, you know, one way and that’s the most obvious and most direct way. Thereafter beyond that, certainly, of course, journalists are constantly having to write about what are the prospects of the parties, what we should be on the lookout for, and many a journalist, to do that, will do what journalists often have to do if they have to write copy, which is to get on the telephone, to ring up their sources which in this case may be psephologists, and say, Look, you know, what do you think about this? What are the prospects? What does David Cameron or Ed Miliband or Nick Clegg have to do in order to get out of whatever particular hole they might be or to hang on to whatever poll lead they might currently have? One thing to bear in mind is that given the requirement of broadcasters to be neutral, if they are wanting to speculate reasonably freely about the prospects of the parties, using an academic gives them rather more freedom than might be the case than if it was the BBC journalist, or the ITN journalist or Sky journalist themselves saying this. So I think in truth, sometimes, we provide cover for, because we have the freedom to say things that maybe journalists think ought to be said but maybe if they were themselves to say it, might be thought to question their political neutrality. So there’s a whole variety of ways there in which, through interacting with broadcast and print media, psephologists have knowledge and skills that they find useful.
Richard Heffernan
Often, notable psephologists can become public figures themselves. Academic celebrities, if you will.
[Background discussion]
Speaker 7
…this is the eighth appearance on the swingometer. Now you may remember my saying, at the beginning of the evening, Mrs Thatcher…
Speaker 8
…what has struck me in the first two weeks of the campaign is how few of the headline stories…
Richard Heffernan
From the 1950s onwards, David Butler of Nuffield College, Oxford and Bob McKenzie of the London School of Economics became well-recognised faces thanks to BBC television’s election night coverage.
[Background discussion]
Speaker 9
…bring the swingometer up to date to make room for the kind of swings that have several…
Richard Heffernan
Tell us something about the so-called teledons, the late great Bob McKenzie and David Butler who pioneered communicating to the public through, on election night, I know you do this yourself on any, many elections. Tell us something about that. What role does that play in our national life?
Professor John Curtice
Well, I mean, there is no doubt that historically, professional and political scientists have played quite a significant role in the way in which British elections have been reported and certainly, if one goes back to the early election television of the 1950s and the 1960s, then undoubtedly, the two big giants in this field were on the one hand, Bob McKenzie, actually a Canadian political scientist based at London School of Economics who particularly developed an ability, almost, actually, the ability of a journalist to gain access to politicians and to interview them both on air and also off air, privately, and then to use that in order to be able to become one of the presenters on election night of how the story was developing and why this was of political import and interest. Meanwhile, alongside him there was David Butler from Oxford University and it was David’s statistical knowledge which was then being used by BBC because the truth is, as soon as a result came in from, let’s say, St Ives or Inverness or wherever, the BBC would go to David and say, David, what is this? And David would say, Well, this is a three per cent swing, remember, we’d get these results being declared one after another, at one o’clock, two o’clock, three o’clock in the morning, when most people are not awake, they simply want to know who’s winning and who’s losing, and he developed the art of being able to use simple statistics, to be able to tell the wider audience what is going on, and I think, you know, those of us who have travelled in their wake have essentially been plying much the same trade, of trying to convey to the audience what is the significance in terms of the overall likely eventual result of the early results that are being declared because the truth is they want to know is what does this mean for who is going to be in 10 Downing Street by, within 24 hours or so?
Richard Heffernan
So it would be fair to say that the psephologists who have that communication skill what we see on election night on our television is the tip of the iceberg, they’re actually utilising skills and knowledges they’ve built up over a long period of time and the study that they’ve engaged in for quite some considerable time, yes?
Well, there is no doubt, certainly, what you see in front of the screen is the tip of the iceberg in two senses. One is that indeed those who you might see on your screen will be drawing on many years of study and understanding, but it’s also true that it has become one of the most active fields of intellectual endeavour within political science, studying political behaviour, including electoral behaviour, using broadly statistical methods, using survey research done, many of those people who do that don’t necessarily feel particularly comfortable with journalism, don’t necessarily want to get involved in that world but there is no doubt that those of us who do get involved in that world will use their insights in order to try and give an idea to the wider public of what’s going on.
Richard Heffernan
What relationship do psephologists enjoy with politicians? Are they close?
Professor John Curtice
Well, I think the truth is, the answer to that question is that it varies and it’s partly to do with preference and partly to do with style. Certainly, some of those who have been prominent psephologists on television, particularly David Butler and Anthony King, one of those who succeeded him on television, do, have indeed spent a lot of time talking to politicians, often off the record and indeed have used that kind of material as one of the sources of evidence for their academic writing. Others, however, won’t necessarily do that. I mean, I personally do a little bit of talking to politicians but in truth, primarily because politicians want to talk to me rather than vice versa. I actually deliberately take the view that, for example, I do not wish to be talked to by spin doctors, I do not want politicians to tell me what they think the public are thinking, I prefer to rely on the survey evidence and to try to interpret that dispassionately and to that extent, at least, I regard what I want to do as rather different from the way in which a politician might want to interact, but occasionally, yes, there is no doubt, that because, if one does engage in journalism, whether in broadcast or print media, therefore as a result, politicians get to know who you are, and certainly, therefore, for example, if you bump into them in the green room of a television studio, whatever, that you may well pass the time of day and sometimes that passing of the time of the day may prove to be rather an interesting off-the-record conversation. So some of that undoubtedly happens but I think, certainly one would have to say that, you know, these days, talking to politicians is probably an extra for most academics who are involved in this field, rather than something they regard as central to their trade. And to that extent, this is probably now rather more of a divorce between academic study of voting behaviour and much of the political world and probably there are some downsides on that, I think also, there are probably also are some advantages.
Richard Heffernan
Talking to politicians is probably an extra for psephologists rather than something they regard as central to their trade. But what of the public? What use do they make of psephology?
Professor John Curtice
Well, I think, if one were to defend the public value of psephology, indeed, it’s probably a similar defence to that that one would make of many areas of social science, and that is, is to help the public and society understand itself, and in this case, to enable the public and society to understand the political system and the political environment in which it’s operating, and for people to understand the way in which elections in their country are operating, are acting, the consequences, et cetera. So I think first of all, just in terms of, you know, a certain degree of honesty in political debate, and in giving people some voice in the political process, through the fact that they’re being surveyed and their views are therefore, to some degree, being articulated in the political process, that is important. And also, undoubtedly means that, in so far as politicians do actually begin to take some notice of what academic psephologists say, to some degree also, though not putting too much emphasis on this, act as advocates for the opinions of the general public. And then, of course, certainly, more narrowly, in so far as elections are potentially rather confusing businesses, and you know, we’ve got these 600 constituencies, and how is it all these votes end up being counted and we end up with some kind of collective decision as to who ends up being in parliament. So I think, on all these grounds, shall we say, we do a variety of public goods for our society that I think I would defend as being worth spending at least a certain amount of tax payers’ money on.
Richard Heffernan
Is it inevitable, however, that the specialist knowledge and the methodology that psephologists have to employ to study their subject makes it difficult for the public to make sense sometimes of their findings and of their opinions?
Professor John Curtice
There is no doubt that, like many areas of science, academic psephology now employs complex statistical methods which, shall we say, require you to have at least the equivalent of an A level in mathematics to be able to follow and ideally, more than that. So, to that extent, there’s a problem, but in truth, this is an issue that faces all areas of science. The natural sciences these days are engaging in work which requires an understanding of a technical literature that is not available to general public. Now, I would simply argue that academic psephologists, like scientists in general, then however have a responsibility to make their work accessible to the general public. And the truth is that there are ways in which one can take what might be a relatively complex statistical model and having tested it rigorously and ensured oneself that indeed it meets the highest academic standards, to then take that and to use illustrations and using rather simpler statistics, to illustrate the more complex academic finding in a way that the general public might understand. So one might conduct a regression model which for example, says that the most important reason why the Labour Party lost the last election was because people had lost confidence in its ability to govern the economy and that this was the thing that principally dissuaded people who had voted Labour in 2005 from voting Labour again in 2010. So that might be the results of some quite complex analysis but then why, can say to people, Well, actually, the most crucial thing that happened between 2005 and 2010 is that whereas in 2005, let us say about 50 per cent of people thought the Labour Party were able to run the economy well, by 2010, that had fallen to 20 per cent and that this was the crucial reason why Labour lost the election. Now, on its own, that statement doesn’t really prove the point but it exemplifies the point for a wider public in such a way that they can begin to grasp. Well, actually, yes, I can see why you’re saying what you’re saying. And I think, in truth, it’s perfectly possible, usually, to be able to demonstrate, through simple statistics, or by analogy or through example, why it is that one’s come to the conclusion that one has.
Richard Heffernan
John, tell me how important is new technology to the study of psephology? Are there more and more outlets by which psephologists can communicate to each other and to the public and pundits and politicians?
Professor John Curtice
Well, certainly so far as communication is concerned, new technology is potentially important. I think the truth is that academics are being encouraged now to interact rather more with the wider world to use the jargon, to demonstrate impact. And therefore, even if academics don’t necessarily want to get involved in mainstream journalism, they are certainly being encouraged to put their wares on the internet, and also to write blogs and indeed, even to go round tweeting in order to draw the attention of at least the interested public to the work that they’re engaged in and some of their observations. So I think certainly undoubtedly academics are now being invited to communicate beyond narrow forms of academic publication but maybe in a forum which still is relatively specialised and is speaking to a relatively specialised audience, it’s opened up a niche. I mean, the truth is that most of the people who are going to read the kind of things that academics write on the internet are in truth, political anoraks, they’re people who are very interested in politics, but it does at least provide academics a means of interacting with that somewhat wider audience, than immediate academic psephology.
Richard Heffernan
Does it give citizens the chance to be their own psephologist?
Professor John Curtice
Well, it certainly of course gives citizens the chance to broadcast their views over the internet. It’s also true that the advent of the internet has meant that commercial opinion polls just now, are putting a lot of technical information up on the web, so anybody who wants to know the details of any opinion poll that’s published in the UK now can go to the polling company’s website and find the full detailed tables. It’s also true that, because academics are putting their papers up and sometimes also putting their data up for other people to use, those who have the skills and the time and the inclination can do so outside of academia, can engage in this kind of work. It has to be said, for the most part, those who do it are relatively limited. It is pretty demanding activity, it requires time as well as resource but certainly, yes, to some degree at least, it provides some opportunity for democratising the process of understanding public opinion and I certainly think it means that therefore our particular interpretation, academics’ particular interpretation of their data is now open to challenge by a slightly wider audience than might have been true in the past.
Richard Heffernan
As you have heard, psephology uses social science to explain the act of voting. By explaining the meaning of any election, psephologists engage with and educate politicians, pundits and the public by describing, understanding and enacting this part of the social world they study.
I hope this audio has been helpful. Good luck with the rest of your study."
No comments:
Post a Comment